What if we only had to carry a baby for 2 months?

slmille4 · November 2013

My husband brought this up this weekend, what if humans gestational period was only 2 months long... do you think more people would have more babies? Personally, I think most people would (hopefully) still only have as many as they could afford.

amt0312 · November 2013

I personally would have probably 1 or 2 more than I am currently planning on....part of the reason keeping us from having more is because pregnancy takes so long and my husband is older than me and we don't want to have babies while he is in his 40's.

CopperT0p · November 2013

I'm lucky in that I have easy pregnancies, so a shorter pregnancy wouldn't really change anything for me. We know how many kids we want and can afford to raise comfortably.

cpm1223 · November 2013

No way! I like having time to prepare for the arrival of LO...I've been lucky to not be miserable (yet) so I actually enjoy being pregnant.

LabPupLuv · November 2013

I might seriously consider being a surrogate for some friends and family who are having problems carrying. I would definitely have done it for my sister if IVF hadn't worked for her, but it would make the decision for helping others easier. I'm getting older and pregnancy is long and hard on the body.

Shannahbee · November 2013

I'm with @cpm1223, that's way too short! I feel like 6-7 months would be perfect...

kteeswei · November 2013

I voted that it wouldn't matter, I still plan on having two. That said, I haven't survived the first pregnancy yet! As miserable as it is I have faith that mommy amnesia will make my decision to have the second easier than it seems right now. A shorter gestation period would be awesome though.

Katsterlis · November 2013

Honestly, I was no where near prepared for the idea of a baby when I found out that I was pregnant. 9 months of preparation has made me feel grateful and secure with the adjustments in my life.

Winnieella · November 2013

I voted SS. I didn't know I was pregnant until I was in the second month, so I can't imagine it being 2 months long. That being said, H and I would still only have as many kids that we can take care of/ that my body can handle.

LimeDrops · November 2013

We would probably have gone for one more, as that's what we had planned on. The only reason we're stopping "early" is because I'm ready to pursue some personal goals (read: a little bored

)and my body/back is about shot now as far as gestating goes. I think if pregnancy were shorter, we could have had 4 in the same amount of time, and it probably also wouldn't take as much of a toll on me physically.

Kbrittonhart · November 2013

I think its the labor and delivery that discourages people not the 40 weeks

sugarland726 · November 2013

I have a friend who does not tolerate pregnancy well AT ALL. Multiple hospitalizations, HG, etc and she is only just now 20 weeks. They would definitely have more kids, but are done with their second because she has such issues.

As for me, pregnancy is such a short period of time for what it represents. Meaning, I am pregnant for 9 months but I am a mother, emotionally, legally, and financially, forever. So no, that would not change how many kids we had.

ksonne · November 2013

I don't think it would change how many children we want. Being a parent is a lifelong responsibility, and I'm glad I get 9 months to mentally prepare. I think when DS was born, it was a bigger shock for DH to finally be a parent because he didn't physically and mentally prepare like I did during pregnancy. With that said, I'm alsp thankful we don't have 21 months of pregnancy like elephants.

JaneW2 · November 2013

I voted "more." I've always wanted 2 kids, but this pregnancy is so hard and I'm not getting any younger. If I could get a second one without physically gestating, I totally would. As it is, I'm not sure there will be another child.

MrsGraham06 · November 2013

Yes, I'd probably have more.

However, we had to try really hard to not have kids 12 months apart (we made it to 15, lol!) So...having said that, I'm not sure I'd like to have kids be 4 months apart. Yikes!

Besides, usually the 9 months helps to prepare mentally, emotionally, and physically (stock up on baby stuff). How many people don't know they are pregnant until week 5-7? Then you pop out a baby? (but DH wishes that's how it happens)

Deblondie1 · November 2013

Yeah SS from the options listed. A shorter gestational period doesn't change the fact that my body fails at pregnancy, regardless how many kids I had dreamed of having.

tootsscott · November 2013

I am absolutely thrilled to get 2 babies in 1 go so I don't have to do this again. Period!

bellamatson · November 2013

@tootsscott

I told my husband I am bummed we aren't having twins cuz Id rather only do this once. Hahaha

kw42775 · November 2013

bellamatson said:
@tootsscott

I told my husband I am bummed we aren't having twins cuz Id rather only do this once. Hahaha

Me too!!

Pinknights · November 2013

Hmm like above I think the twins at once is great!

But in regards to the poll maybe I would have one more but not tons more. The responsibility and Lifelong commitment is still needed.

Siblynika · November 2013

I don't think I could handle being pregnant for only two months- that just feels like too little time to prepare. I'm with whomever said 6-7 months sounded ideal.

Nviener28 · November 2013

I think this question isn't very valid and varies a lot to a persons situation. Both of my SIL's went through very hard pregnancies. Both had bed rest from very early, one of them had to have her uterus sewn because she couldn't carry for long enough. She had two miscarriages before her two current daughters. They both would of loved to have a third. Especially since they come from a large family. So you can't make general assumption from this poll that most people are this or that. It really depends on the situation... And I don't think the amount of time your pregnant has anything to do with it, and besides- it's physically impossible... Unless your a dog! Lol

RedSaffron · November 2013

Siblynika said:
I don't think I could handle being pregnant for only two months- that just feels like too little time to prepare. I'm with whomever said 6-7 months sounded ideal.

I agree, I would sh*t myself if I had two months to prepare for a baby-emotionally, physically, and financially.. I'm on the 6-7 months train because that's around the time when you are kind of over all the pain and discomfort. Its possible its easier to have more kids, but I want two and SO wants four. We shall see who will win this battle..

brideandbreve · November 2013

If pregnancy was only 2 months, versus 9 or 10 or whatever it is, I'd have a third baby, sure.

Our plan was always to have 3, but pregnancy has kicked my ass this time around and I can't imagine another pregnancy while chasing 2 toddlers plus being in my 30s. Nope.

Want a personalized experience?

What if we only had to carry a baby for 2 months?

What if we only had to carry a baby for 2 months? 174 votes

Re: What if we only had to carry a baby for 2 months?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards